asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will make a further statement on the recent representations made to him by various local authorities, religious bodies and others on his proposals for the reform of local government in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he will make a statement on the Government's plans for the reorganisation of local government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received regarding the division of Fife, arising from the reform of local government proposals for Scotland; and if he will make a statement.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the representations made to him since the publication of the White Paper on the reform of local government in Scotland, he intends to modify the structural proposals made in the White Paper.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he has come to a conclusion on an alternative local government structure for the west of Scotland, following submissions by the county councils concerned and by the Convention of Royal Burghs; and if he will make a statement.

Since the White Paper was published in February I have continued discussions with the local authority associations.

I think that we are all grateful for the right hon. Gentleman's statement but it does not completely cover the point made about the representations of various religious bodies, particularly the Catholic Church and the Church of Scotland, in relation to education provision, and I should welcome a further statement on that.

On the first question, I replied in a Written Answer some days ago to the point about representation by religious denominations and made it clear that we do not intend to change the present principle. I think that that has been accepted by all those who have written in about it. It all started because this matter was raised at a meeting with my noble Friend and she invited the Churches to write in. But that has been settled, and I replied on that matter some time ago.

Would my right hon. Friend agree that the Clan Campbell is held in some disregard in certain parts of Scotland and this will be felt keenly in the same way in Fife as a result of what he has said? Would my right hon. Friend now agree that the evidence that was given to the Wheatley Commission by the Scottish Office on the effects of cross-estuarial planning has been shown to be entirely wrong by facts that have been made known to him, and will he please acknowledge that?

It was the Wheatley Royal Commission in 1969 which made the basic recommendation on the structure for the regions, which included the suggestion that Fife should be divided. A number of clans represented on that Wheatley Royal Commission would also be included with the Clan Campbell. It had a distinguished membership which included two present Members of this House.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that his statement will be a very serious disappointment to many people in Fife? Would he not agree that Fife is a natural geographical and manageable unit to be a region of local government? How many representations did he receive from organisations and individuals in the County of Fife? I and my colleagues in the rest of Fife have received thousands of postcards expressing people's dislike of being divided. Will not the right hon. Gentleman reconsider the position? Is he not aware that even Edinburgh City is not too happy about having Fife tacked on to it in the new local government region?

I am to reply to another Question about the number of representations received. I agree that it is distasteful to divide an ancient kingdom, and that was the dilemma. The sentiment and traditional feelings of allegiance to Fife are very strong but, for the many reasons summarised in paragraph 750 of the Wheatley Report, one has to put those on one side and weigh against them the very important factors for the future. As regards the consultants' document, the main thing which it brought out was something I knew already—that Fife County Council is a very efficient unit of local government. But it would not continue under any reorganisation of local government.

By what date will it no longer be possible to effect changes or amendments to the boundaries?

The proposals which were in the White Paper and have been the subject of consultation in the following months, and on which I have now made some further announcements, are of course the proposals on which the Bill is to be based. We shall introduce the Bill into Parliament, clearly not this Session but, we hope, soon afterwards. We would hope to get as much agreement as possible. I am glad to say that on the adjustment of boundaries a good deal of agreement has been reached locally.

Leaving aside Clan Campbell, does my right hon. Friend realise that his statement will give very little pleasure in the western region?

I recognise, as does my hon. Friend, that the western region poses very difficult problems, but there has been general agreement by all those who have considered it that it should be as large as it is.

No.

The counties which put forward the alternative scheme which I have been considering with consultants put forward an idea of only four districts instead of the 13 which we were proposing, but they, too, accepted that this area as a whole should be a region. But the problem is how to arrange the administration within that region so that it can be most effective.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that he marred the possibility of change by statements which I thought ill-advised in the issue of his White Paper—that he would not accept any changes at that time? Since then, he has seen local authorities. It is only fair to those in the western region which he mentioned to say that they put forward a second alternative only because they felt that it would be unwise to go forward with the same thing. The districts which he put forward were very much different in powers from the existing districts.

I shall deal with that last point straight away. Their functions are different. Where there are smaller districts, in the north and south of Scotland, those districts will have fewer functions.

indicated dissent.

The right hon. Gentleman has not read the White Paper. They will not have planning functions.

Does my right hon. Friend's statement make any difference between the western region and the south-western region from what was proposed in the White Paper?

Broadly, no. There are boundary adjustments which my hon. Friend will be able to see when he examines the documents in the Library concerning district boundaries, but broadly the boundary line between the two regions remains as proposed in the White Paper in February.

Do not the right hon. Gentleman's proposals today constitute a second or supplementary White Paper? Would he be kind enough to place copies of these proposals in the Vote Office so that we can have them today before we go to our constituencies tomorrow?

I assure the hon. Gentleman that they are complete, with explanations, in the documents in the Library. I made this arrangement specially so that hon. Members would be able to collect copies today as they leave the Chamber. The document in the Library contains details of all the changes I have announced today and the smaller ones which will be in the OFFICIAL REPORT tomorrow.

Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that while a number of people in Fife may well be disappointed with his statement, a number of burghs in the county will be quite relieved at having escaped the burden of county council administration? Will he ensure that the social work services will be allocated to district authorities and that there is a more equitable representation on both district authorities and regional authorities throughout Scotland? I understand that the basis for calculating the representation on these authorities is very different between the central region and Fife.

I agree with the hon. Gentleman that there has been some difference of opinion within Fife about the future in that recently some boroughs where in favour of the proposals in the Wheatley White Paper. The social work services are intended to be with the regional councils, but the changes we made in the White Paper to the Wheatley recommendations have all been welcomed by a majority of people in Scotland. One of the changes we made was that the function of housing—a very important and large function covering many minor subjects—should be moved from the regional council to the district authorities.

On a point of order. It is 20 minutes past eleven o'clock. Should not this matter have been taken after Questions?

Further to that point of order. I have replied to five Questions together. Had I made a statement at 12 o'clock I would have been cutting, into the time for private Members' Adjournment debates. Scottish Oral Questions are surely the time for me to make a short statement and to reply to oral supplementaries. To suggest otherwise is to turn the procedure upside down.

On a point of order. The Minister failed to reply to the part of my question about representation.

I will bear in mind what the hon. Gentleman has said about that.

The right hon. Gentleman will appreciate the difficulty that the House is in about this matter. Will he immediately take up with the Leader of the House the necessity for having a debate on this subject in Government time? In view of his suggestion that it should have been debated before now, he will remember that we were awaiting the Government's White Paper on local government finance and he will be aware of the delay with the White Paper on housing.

Yes, but it was only because the previous Government did not include the question of finance in the Wheatley Commission's remit and started to consider it only late in the day that it was not possible for a Green Paper to be available earlier. I have already given an assurance that I will take up with my right hon. Friend the question of an early debate.

rose—

I am afraid we must get on.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further proposals he will now make to reduce unemployment in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further measures he proposes to take to stimulate employment in Scotland.

Within the field for which the Scottish Office is responsible my Department has been in constant touch with local authorities about job-creating public works since my announcement of a special works scheme on 13th July. Projects amounting to over £60 million in Scotland have so far been approved and proposals under this scheme are still being considered.

Will the Secretary of State look at fields outside the responsibility of the Scottish Office and use his influence as Secretary of State on, for example, public corporations such as the B.B.C. regarding its programme of construction of transmitters, some of which is falling behind because the corporation says that it is short of investment money? Surely this is the sort of area which is within the right hon. Gentleman's wider responsibility for creating and improving employment and welfare in Scotland.

The hon. Gentleman and I are together in thinking that the Secretary of State's job includes bringing influence to bear on his colleagues in all the fields which help Scotland. If the hon. Gentleman has individual projects or subjects in mind, lying within the responsibility of other departmental Ministers, I hope that he will put down Questions to them.

Is the Secretary of State aware that, apart from short-term measures to deal with the present appalling unemployment figures, many feel that there are long-term opportunities for Scotland in, for example, exploitation of North Sea oil and the deep water facilities of the Clyde but that what is lacking in this matter is a real sense of urgency on the part of the Government and, most particularly, the necessary decision-making by the Government, especially on the exploitation of Hunterston? When will we have decisions from the Government instead of the endless paper studies which are all that we have had so far?

I agree in principle with what the hon. Gentleman has said. On North Sea oil, a decision involving about £170 million was announced by a company last week. I have been much involved in the whole question of how North Sea oil can best be brought to shore and help Scotland. On the question of Hunterston, I cannot add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said in the debate last week.

Has my right hon. Friend heard the Chancellor and the Secretary of State for Trade and Industry at Question Time very recently making it clear that they have not closed their minds to the possibility of lower income tax and corporation tax rates for Scotland when regional employment premium is phased out? Would not this be a remarkable boost for Scotland? Is my right hon. Friend discussing this with his Cabinet colleagues?

Many ideas are discussed with Cabinet colleagues, as I am sure my hon. Friend knows. He will no doubt be as glad as I am that such ideas are still open.

Is the Secretary of State aware that we had hoped for a statement on the incentives given to industries within the special development areas but that so far we have seen no response from the Ministers concerned? Does the Secretary of State realise that there are a number of industries—of which I have given him six examples and there is one in my constituency of which I shall give him notice this morning—in which we cannot expand the labour force because of the lack of additional incentives? Is not this a practical proposition which could be adopted as soon as possible?

The hon. Gentleman knows that this is a matter that both hon. Members and Ministers have discussed. This is not a very easy matter; it is complicated and is still being considered.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if, in view of paragraph 22 of the Scottish Law Commission 1970–71 Annual Report, he is now prepared to assist in the reform of divorce law in Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what plans he has to introduce legislation to amend the divorce law of Scotland in accordance with the recommendations of the Scottish Law Commission in its Sixth Annual Report.

My right hon. Friend has no proposals for legislation on this subject.

Is not the Minister aware of the very scathing comments made in paragraph 22 of the Scottish Law Commission's Report on the methods of trying to get divorce law reform through the House and of the criticisms of the very serious effects which delay is having on the Commission's proposals for family life? In the circumstances, does not the Minister feel that he has a responsibility to assist in getting some form of divorce reform through the House of Commons?

I am aware of the views expressed on the subject. I am also aware that the proposals for reform which were incorporated in the Bill which the hon. Member for Aberdeen, North (Mr. Robert Hughes) presented to the House proved to be highly controversial. It remains the Government's view that legislation on the subject, Which clearly raises many moral issues on which people have very strong convictions is more appropriate to a Private Member's Bill.

Will the Minister bear in mind that even though these matters are controversial the Government should not run away from the very serious damage being done to family life in Scotland? I am asking the Government not to produce the legislation but to help by providing time to ensure that Private Members' Bills are not involved in hazards in the way that Government Bills are.

The question of the time of the House is not for me. As for assistance by the Government in this matter, as the hon. Gentleman knows, when he presented his Bill the Government authorised the Law Commission to assist him with it, and that was the correct thing to do.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many houses are expected to be completed in 1971; how many have been started since 1st January, 1971 to date; and how many are under construction.

The relevant figures as at 30th September are given in the Housing Return for Scotland. 30th September, 1971. The figures for the whole year will not be known until we have the returns for the last quarter.

Is it not the case that the total completions will be down considerably in 1971 as compared with previous years and that the indications are that they will continue to decline? As one-quarter of the unemployed in Scotland are currently building trade workers, is not the crime compounded by the combination of these two facts?

The number of completions in 1971 will have depended on the number of starts in 1969 and 1970. There may be some continuing turndown but, as I stated in the housing debate a few days ago, approvals are now turning upwards, so completions at some time to come should start rising again.

The Secretary of State has been kind enough to write to me about the housing situation in Shetland. Will he bear in mind that we have a considerable chance now of increasing employment and even bringing back some population to the north of Scotland but that the housing situation is a handicap? Would he see whether approvals can be increased and exert pressure and bring what help he can to local authorities both to build new houses and to repair old ones?

I am aware of the point and I shall do what I can to help.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what is his policy towards the provision of public funds for bus services in North-East Scotland.

Under Section 34 of the Transport Act, 1968, Government grant at the rate of 50 per cent. is available to local authorities which incur expenditure for the provision, improvement or continuance of rural bus services. In addition the local authorities' share of the cost is taken into account in the calculation of rate support grant. Aberdeen County Council has taken an initiative, which we welcome, to work out a mutually satisfactory arrangement between the local authorities and the major bus operator in the North-East for the maintenance of essential rural bus services throughout the area.

Does my hon. Friend agree that the major operators regard these as services which are bound to run at a loss, so that in the end it becomes a question of whether this is another factor which is speeding rural depopulation?

I appreciate my hon. and gallant Friend's concern over this matter. It is significant that the services that have been proposed for assistance number 27 uneconomic routes at a cost of £148,000 a year. This indicates the concern of the local authority in the area to be of help in this matter.

While agreeing that the provisions of the Transport Act, 1968, were far reaching, may I ask the Minister to agree that things have changed radically even in the last three years and that the rate of depopulation of rural areas is speeding up? Will he consider with his right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for the Environment the possibility of reviewing the balance between local authority and national cost—in other words, increase the national grant for some services in view of the big burden that falls on some local authorities?

I have noted the hon. Gentleman's remarks. I appreciate the departmental involvement he had in this subject in the Labour Government. If he studies my reply he will see that the extent of Government financial assistance is quite large.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he is aware that retired pensioners who are exempt from charges for drugs by reason of their age are not similarly exempt from charges for special brassieres prescribed as an element of treatment under his National Health Service (Charges) (Scotland) Regulation, 1971; and if he will take steps to rectify this anomaly.

My right hon. Friend is aware of the position. Any patient who suffers financial hardship can apply to the local social security office for a refund.

Has the Minister looked into the method of assessment of applicants for these surgical appliances? Is he aware that people aged 65, whether or not they are retired, are eligible for exemption from charges for drugs? Why should retired pensioners of 65 not qualify for exemption from charges for surgical appliances in the way that people of 16, war pensioners, hospital in-patients and those in receipt of supplementary benefit are exempted? Does he agree that there is an anomaly here and will he look at the whole issue again?

Surgical clothing is generally worn in place of ordinary items of clothing, which the patient would buy anyway, whereas in the normal course the patient would not buy drugs. However, in view of the hon. Gentleman's representations I will, without commitment, look at the matter again and write to him.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what representations he has had regarding the conditions in Ward 7. Royal Hospital for Sick Children, Edinburgh; and what action he proposes to take.

I have received representations from the Eastern Branch of the Scottish Spina Bifida Association and from seven Members of this House. I recently visited the hospital and asked the hospital authorities to take steps to make alternative arrangements for patients in Ward 7. The South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board has now decided to withdraw patients from this ward and to make alternative facilities available from within existing resources with the least possible delay.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the decision to close Ward 7 will be welcomed by the parents of the patients in the ward and by the staff who have had to work in it under very difficult conditions? Has his attention been drawn to an article in the Daily Record of last Tuesday in which the consultant paediatric neurologist, Dr. Thomas Ingram, called for an inquiry into the affairs of the South-Eastern Regional Hospital Board, into the activities, or lack of activity, on the part of the board and the apparent indifference of the board to the needs of children? Will the Minister set up such an inquiry and see that if members of the board or others holding positions of responsibility are not fit to carry that responsibility, they will be relieved of it?

I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman for his remarks in the first part of his supplementary question. The important step now is to make sure that the changes which I have requested are made as soon as possible. I think that this will be far better done without an inquiry, which I do not propose to set up.

Does my hon. Friend agree that there are in existence some very good plans proposed by the authorities concerned with the Royal Hospital for Sick Children in Edinburgh? Could they be implemented? When does he think that a start can be made to get them into operation so that the whole hospital can be improved?

The regional hospital board has set out its priorities for future building after 1972. My right hon. Friend and I will be considering the priorities very soon indeed and then we shall announce when the new rolling programme will start. There is, however, no question at all but that the replacement of the existing Hospital for Sick Children is at the top of the hoard's list.

What oversight does the Minister intend to have over the alternative arrangements that are to be made immediately?

Day-to-day contact with the board.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what consideration he has given to the introduction of proportional representation in the proposed reform of local government in Scotland.

My right hon. Friend has no plans for such a change.

Does the Minister agree that there should be the maximum opportunity for involvement in the new structure, both for individuals and minority groups, and that unless there is a change in the voting system a lot of talent will be lost to local government?

I agree with what the hon. Member says about the need for involvement. Indeed, we want as much involvement as possible. However, in the consultations that I have had with local authority associations and political parties I have not detected any desire for a change in the relative majority system of elections.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how frequently inspections are carried out of wild life parks and premises where wild animals are kept to ensure that such animals as wolves and brown bear do not escape, and again become indigenous to Scotland.

An absolute duty to ensure that wild animals do not escape rests with those in charge of a wild life park or other such premises where animals are kept. In law a strict liability lies upon those in charge of such animals for any damage they may cause if they escape or get out of control.

Has my hon. Friend seen a recent Press report that a giant turtle which escaped in Arbroath was, happily, recaptured a few days later? When will his Department recapture the wild boar which has been loose in Galloway for at least a year? Does my hon. Friend agree that proper precautions should be taken to see that these ferocious creatures do not escape?

I confess that what happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for South Angus (Mr. Bruce-Gardyne) had escaped my notice. I was, however, aware of what had happened in the constituency of my hon. Friend the Member for Galloway (Mr. Brewis) and I will certainly look into the representations he has made. I hope that at this festive season he will exclude reindeer from his strictures.

Is not the wild boar the symbol of the Clan Campbell?

That is correct.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he will announce his policy for assistance over freight and passenger charges for Arran, Bute and Cumbrae.

My review of policy in relation to sea transport services and subsidies will be completed as soon as possible. Meanwhile I note my hon. Friend's suggestion that, contrary to present arrangements, Government assistance might be extended to certain Clyde services.

Does my right hon. Friend realise that these islands of the Clyde are as much islands as any others and that it is a shame that they should be discriminated against compared with islands only a few miles further north?

I accept that point. The Scottish Transport Group has not asked for assistance with the services and at present the customers are not being asked to meet their full cost.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what percentage of children in each of the local authorities which have completed an examination of all children have been certified so far as requiring milk on medical grounds.

With permission, I will circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT the figures available about the issue of certificates stating that the pupil's health requires that he should be provided with milk at school. So far as I am aware no authority has had all its primary pupils medically examined for this purpose or intends to do so.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the figures we have seen so far make a nonsense of the whole affair, with some schools having a take-up of over 90 per cent. and some with virtually no take-up at all? It is clear that there are no criteria to guide medical officers of health in this matter. Will the hon. Gentleman make it clear that no Scottish child need be deprived of milk if the local medical officer thinks that milk should be provided for good health?

We have always made it clear that the decision in each individual case depends on the professional judgment of the medical officer. Some variation between areas and schools is hound to arise. The answer to the hon. Gentleman's query on the preventive aspect is that we are not giving specific advice to medical officers but simply suggesting that in the exercise of their professional judgment in any particular case they may properly take into account any relevant preventive factors.

Does the hon. Gentleman have any method of monitoring the extent of radioactivity to which children might be exposed, so that if it rises above an unacceptable level milk can once again be supplied to them since it is a very good method of absorbing the rays?

Yes, indeed. The different authorities' areas in Scotland are being monitored for that very reason.

Despite the present Government's promise at the last election to give more freedom to local authorities, can the hon. Gentleman say whether they have now all been whipped into line on this matter?

There are still two authorities that have the matter under discussion but otherwise all have now accepted the procedure of the 1947 Act, produced by the hon. Gentleman's Government, no doubt with the involvement of the right hon. Member for Kilmarnock (Mr. Ross).

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland which local authorities in Scotland are carrying out examinations of children in primary schools in order to issue milk on medical grounds.

The Education (Milk) Act does not require an education authority to have pupils examined for this purpose. The authority's duty is to provide milk for primary pupils over the age of seven in respect of whom there is in force a certificate by a medical officer of the authority stating that their health requires that they should be provided with milk at school.

Does not the Secretary of State's recent advice that milk may be provided on preventive grounds make it necessary for him to issue a circular encouraging all local authorities to have the most searching medical examination made of their pupils so that milk can be provided to the maximum number of children who need this nutrient?

The hon. Gentleman is not correctly stating the position. I wish that he and his hon. Friends would remember that under the 1968 Act no secondary school children receive school milk whether for medical reasons or otherwise.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what further representations he has received from the inshore fishing industry regarding the Common Market negotiations; and if he will make a statement.

I have discussed this question fully with representatives of the industry at several recent meetings. After their last discussion on 15th December the representatives said they were satisfied with the outcome of the negotiations and with the assurance of further consultation which I gave.

While undoubtedly many fishermen are relieved that the length of our shore protected by the 12-mile limit is substantially better than they originally feared, is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is a great deal of apprehension about the position at the end of the 10-year period? That concern was sharply increased by the disgraceful refusal of the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster in the debate last week to tell us precisely what the legal position is as regards the end of the 10-year period. Is it the case that at the end of 10 years the prevailing policy will be the common fisheries policy and that notwithstanding what comes out of the review other European countries will be able to veto all the proposals we might put forward for the retention of the 12-mile limit?

The review procedure we have agreed for the end of the initial period is one that is open and will have full regard to the social, economic and conservation aspects of the fishing industry round our coasts at that time. I would emphasise what my right hon. and learned Friend the Chancellor of the Duchy of Lancaster said absolutely clearly in the debate at the end of the last week: that what will happen in practice is that no future Government could possibly be forced into arrangements which in their judgment failed to safeguard our vital fishing interests.

But if no satisfactory agreement is arrived at after 10 years, what limits do we apply off Britain?

That is a matter to be agreed at the end of the 10-year period. It is absolutely clear that in practice—and I call in aid none less than the Leader of the Opposition when he spoke about the constitutional aspects of the Community—it is far more important to examine the way in which the community works and operates when it becomes a living constitution. It was on that basis that my right hon. and learned Friend was quite rightly able to give the full assurances he gave the House a week ago,

Is the hon. Gentleman aware that the feeling is that as far as they go they might be all right but only for 10 years? What we are concerned about is the position after 10 years—not the scope of the review but the legal position thereafter. When there is no agreement at that time, does power of veto rest not with Britain but with the others who may wish to return to the unrestricted limits?

I never expect to persuade the right hon. Gentleman of this, because I know that he was not looking for success in the negotiations—

The Government did not get it.

The matter has been fully explained and discussed with the fishing industry which accepts the position that in practical terms—and it is practice that counts—its interests are safeguarded at the end of 10 years. As my right hon. and learned Friend said very clearly at the end of last week, if agreement cannot be reached in such a vital matter as this, as in any other vital matter, it calls in question the future of the Community itself.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will request his economic advisory section to undertake a feasibility study of the possibility of setting up a state-financed Scottish industrial holding company.

There is nothing I can add to what my hon. Friend the Minister for Industry said about the Government's attitude to the establishment of State-financed holding companies in the debate on a Motion on public ownership in the name of the right hon. Member for Birkenhead (Mr. Dell) on 10th December.—[Vol. 827, c. 1687–1777.]

Will the right hon. Gentleman accept that the Minister said exactly nothing in that debate? Is not the right hon. Gentleman falling down in his duty and responsibility here? We have a magnificent opportunity to exploit the potentialities of North Sea oil and gas. The formation of a State holding company would go a long way towards ensuring that Scotland gets the benefits of the full exploitation of those resources. Will the right hon. Gentleman do something about it?

I do not accept that my hon. Friend said nothing in that debate. I do not wish to repeat it all here at Question Time. Of course, there are great opportunities now in North Sea oil, as I have said over several months, but the possible advantages of a State-owned holding company have not so far made themselves apparent.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what discussions he has had with betting licence authorities in Scotland in connection with the Horserace Totalisator and Betting Levy Boards Bill.

None, Sir.

Is my hon. Friend aware that under Clause 3 one of the State betting shops could be established in an area where the local licensing authority had refused an identical application from a commercial betting shop? Does not that call for a great deal of thought? Is my hon. Friend reconsidering the future of the Bill?

I have met representatives of betting interests in Scotland and I am considering their representations. It is not intended that the Tote should be able to open betting offices indiscriminately but only, as is provided under Clause 3, under a certificate issued by the Government-appointed members of the Betting Levy Board who, in issuing the certificates, will have regard to the criteria that are approved by the Government.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if in view of the recent increase in retirement pension, he will now make the consequential adjustments in the income levels required to qualify for a maximum rate rebate.

A draft order for this purpose was laid before Parliament on 14th December.

I appreciate the speed with which the hon. Gentleman made the order after I tabled a Question. Is he aware that the increase will hardly match the rising cost of living and the ever-increasing rate burdens arising from the Government's policies? Will he therefore undertake to make an annual review of these income levels?

I am grateful for the first part of the hon. Gentleman's supplementary question. He must realise that he is dealing with a Government that are always responsive to real needs The income limits are being changed for pensioners and non-pensioners alike. Over and above that, we are proposing to increase the addition for each dependent child by 50p to £2·50. It has been £2 a week since 1968. This matter is looked at when other benefits are raised.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will list the overspill receiving authorities at present in receipt of Government subsidy, the total cost in each year of such subsidies since the operation of the Housing and Town Development (Scotland) Act, 1957; and if he will make a statement.

With permission, I will circulate the information in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I have no statement to make.

That makes it difficult—

Order. A supplementary question is not compulsory.

It is Christmas, Mr. Speaker, and I do not think you should try to deny me the pleasure. Ls the Secretary of State aware of the 1970 report of the Glasgow Medical Officer of Health drawing attention to the reversal, for the first time for 60 years, in the trends of increasing height and weight of schoolchildren? That reversal is ascribed to the overspill policy. Will the right hon. Gentleman initiate an immediate and urgent inquiry into the social and economic implications of overspill generally?

The reason I have to circulate the answer in the OFFICIAL REPORT is that it contains the names of about 30 towns and about 20 figures. As regards overspill, the new housing expenditure subsidy and the arrangements in the new Bill will greatly assist overspill both for receiving authorities and for Glasgow.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what immediate plans the Government have to seek to change the New Towns (Scotland) Acts, with a view to changing the present practice of appointing nominated persons to the new town boards with elections.

None, Sir.

Is the hon. Gentleman aware of the unrest and anger being expressed in the Irvine New Town area because of the dictatorial attitudes of the new town board? It is the only new town area in Britain superimposed on existing viable communities. For example, the town of Irvine is celebrating its 600th anniversary next year. Because of the difference in policies causing conflict between the local councils and the new town board, will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that for the Irvine New Town he will amend the Acts to allow elections for the appointment of members to the board?

I refute what the hon. Gentleman says about the board being dictatorial. His assertion is totally unwarranted. I cannot give him the assurance he wants. All new town development corporations—and this one is no exception—include some elected councillors. Local authorities which continue to discharge statutory functions in the new towns are, as elsewhere, always consulted regarding a corporation's development proposals. The hon. Gentleman should bear that in mind as well.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what judgment he has formed on the commercial potential for Scotland of Ocean span; and what steps he is taking to realise this potential.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland what progress he has made in discussions concerning the project, Oceanspan.

I had a useful further discussion with representatives of the Scottish Council, Development and Industry, on 3rd December. The concepts embodied in the Oceanspan report need further development before individual projects can be founded upon them and the Scottish Office is cooperating with the council to this end.

Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that this is perhaps the most imaginative scheme that has been brought forward for many years and that perhaps one of the greatest potentials that Scotland has is that it lies astride the Atlantic Ocean and the North Sea? If we are to gain advantages by our entry into the E.E.C., which many of us are very much in favour of, we would expect the Government to push ahead strenously with this most imaginative project.

I have been supporting the committee which produced this report for the last three years, including its original interim report two and a half years ago, which I welcomed, and its first and second Oceanspan reports. I agree that this is an imaginative proposal. That is why I and the Scottish Office are doing all we can to translate it into action.

Does not the right hon. Gentleman think that it is a reflection on the Scottish Office that such an imaginative proposal should be put by an outside body? Should not this kind of long-term thinking be done in the Scottish Office?

I do not accept that. Long-term thinking on these lines has been going on in the Scottish Office which has been co-operating with the Scottish Council, which set up this body. There has been co-operation in this matter between the Government and the Scottish Council.

Is it not the case that similar projects have been put up in other parts of Europe? Is time therefore not of the essence?

Yes, Sir. The Hunters-ton Development Company has been set up specially to use some of the expertise which has already been applied on the Continent.

Oceanspan depends by definition on the improvement of the harbours in the West, particularly Hunterston. Why is the Clyde Port Authority not being encouraged by the Scottish Office to make application under Sections 4 and 6 of the Harbours Act for loans to get on with the building of the general harbour which the right hon. Gentleman approved after the Hunterston inquiry?

I made the planning decision which gave approval to all that is required and it is now up to the various other bodies, including the Clyde Port Authority, to take the necessary action. All these bodies are anxious to get ahead with these proposals.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he refuses to publish the figures of houses in the public sector, approved but not started, in the quarterly housing return published shortly after the end of each three months.

As I told the hon. Gentleman on 22nd November, this information is already published in Appendices I to IV of the quarterly Housing Return for Scotland.—[Vol. 826, c. 271.]

Does not the right hon. Gentleman realise that there is a difference in time in getting these returns? This is why in my Question, despite tautology, I put the words

"after the end of each three months."

Since the first quarter of 1970 figures have been brought together in a single table in Appendix IV of the return. This figure has been available under this system since the beginning of 1967. I will look into the question of delay.

Is not my right hon. Friend aware that the hon. Member for Greenock (Dr. Dickson Mabon) is somewhat embarrassed because the remarkable drop in starts and approvals which took place when he was responsible for housing has been overtaken by the increase in starts and approvals under the present Government?

I rejoice with my hon. Friend that approvals for houses in the public sector for the months ahead are now on the upward turn.

Why does the Housing (Financial Provisions) (Scotland) Bill contain no provision designed to encourage the building of houses to let or for sale?

I do not accept that. We shall be considering the Bill in detail after the recess. The Bill provides a framework in which house-building where it is needed in Scotland in the public sector can be given every encouragement. It also provides for the encouragement of housing for rent and house-building for home ownership.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has now considered the Hudson Report on Technical and Commercial Further Education; and, in view of the raising of the school-leaving age, if he will take steps to implement the proposals in that report.

My right hon. Friend is now considering the comments of interested bodies on the report, which he commended to their attention in June. He hopes to announce his conclusions early in the New Year.

I appreciate that answer as far as it goes but will the hon. Gentleman assure us that the Department is seized of the urgency of these proposals in the light of the increasing number of unemployed youth, highlighted in the Daily Record yesterday, and of the need for rationalisation of the numerous courses in further education?

The Government do appreciate the importance of the report, which is very valuable. We are urgently considering the recommendations we have received from outside bodies and will announce our conclusions shortly.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether, in view of the lack of investment in Scotland and the need to stimulate new enterprise, he will consider taking steps to establish a development corporation financed by a half share of Government revenues accruing from oil exploitation in Scottish waters.

No, Sir. Important investment decisions have already been taken by Scottish and other companies in consequence of and associated with North Sea oil developments. These and other initiatives in this field are of great value to the Scottish economy. Revenues of any magnitude are unlikely to accrue for some time.

Surely the Secretary of State must by now be aware that, at a time when the Scottish economy is severely depressed, a great many people in Scotland consider it possible that many of the found money revenues which the Government will get from oil—it will be a very large sum—will probably bypass Scotland completely? The establishment of a corporation of the sort I suggest would ensure that Scotland benefited. Similar ideas have been floated by the Scottish Council. Will the right hon. Gentleman look seriously at this matter?

We have the same objective in view—to make sure that Scotland gets the maximum benefit from the North Sea oil development. But revenues of any size are unlikely to come in for some time ahead and the infrastructure and other assistance which the Government can give are needed now.

Surely this development means that we are going to be involved in considerable additional expenditure. Surely it is wrong to say that the revenues are very small. Was not a figure of £37 million quoted for licences over the whole area? Since we are concerned about the future, would it not be better to make plans now to ensure that the financial benefits from this new resource accrue directly to Scotland? We should not wait until it is too late.

I will bear in mind what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The Government are working with the companies engaged in this development and with the Scottish Council, which has put forward its ideas. We are determined to do what is most helpful now in order to ensure that this development is of benefit to Scotland.

asked the Secretary of State for Scotand what is the total acreage of derelict land in Scotland at the present time; and what perecntage of that figure is represented by acreage cleared in 1970.

A rough estimate is that about 13,000 acres might justify reclamation. The present rate of approval of clearance schemes is about 1,000 acres a year; in 1970 schemes covering 329 acres were completed.

Can my hon. Friend tell me what is the average cost of clearance per acre?

Not off the cuff. I will write to my hon. Friend.